XMRV not a mouse contaminent; new human retrovirus; not prostrate XMRV

Go to page

Retired account

Sorry if this has already been mentioned or discussed in some capacity or another but I really found this quite interesting. I'm referring to a point in Dr. Peterson's presentation at the CFSAC meeting in which he said:

With XMRV, it was important to differentiate it from all the other mouse retroviruses that are in the family of gammaretroviruses. And this phylogenetic tree [shown in an accompanying powerpoint slide] that was developed by the gene sequencing demonstrated that this particular XMRV that we isolated from the chronic fatigue patients was similar to but not identical to the XMRV that was demonstrated in patients with prostate cancer (which are represented by the VP62 and VP25).

You'll also note that phylogentically, this particular group of XMRV is quite disparate from the mouse retroviruses. What this means somewhat simplistically is that there has been a genetic deviation from the other mouse retroviruses making it very extremely unlikely that this represents mouse contamination in the laboratory.

''We don't know, but It's not impossible that this happens all the time, that there is some mouse out in the wild that has this as an endogenous virus, err, and, err my labs just begun to look, to see if this is true and the virus can be transmitted from mouse to human and human to human.''http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqQUTcW7zks
Time: 04.13 Elapsed

This surely does not tie in with the thread title that starts with 'Not a mouse contaminent'.

_Kim_

Guest

I took the following quote to mean that it was unlikely that there was XMRV contamination from other laboratory animals that were in the vicinity where testing occurred. This has nothing to do with how the virus crossed species.

extremely unlikely that this represents mouse contamination in the laboratory

Retired account

I apologize if the thread title seems misleading. I actually wanted it to read "Dan Peterson: XMRV not a mouse contaminent; new human... etc." but it wouldn't fit. These aren't necessarily my views as I wasn't even entirely sure what to make of these statements myself, and of course the quote comes from Dr.Peterson.

That said, I appreciate the differing views/insight (that's what I was looking for!) Coffin's statements are particularly interesting, and Kim, you could be right there.

Alas, my brain is a bit too fried at the moment to examine the topic much further right now.

I took the following quote to mean that it was unlikely that there was XMRV contamination from other laboratory animals that were in the vicinity where testing occurred. This has nothing to do with how the virus crossed species.

Guest

I take it to mean the virus mutated in mice who are immune to thus variant anyway and was able to infect humans. Could this happen frequently? Maybe. My interest of course is whether ticks can serve as a robust vector which finally gives me an explanation for chronic antibiotic refractory Lyme. A larval tick feeds on a field mouse with xmrv and molts to a nymph and feeds on a human. At the end of their feeding period ticks vomit ie regurgitate some of their blood meal which is a very effective way to inject multiple pathogens. Then once in the human blood supply can it sometimes spread to other humans either through body fluids or some other means?

Aristocrat Extraordinaire

1. Dr Coffin is right when he says that (originally) it is almost certain this virus came from mice (XMRV and the mouse virus are too similar for it to be coincidence).

2. Dr Peterson is also right when he says that XMRV is sufficiently different from the endogenous mouse retrovirus that it isn't a laboratory contaminant, this is a virus coming from humans.

3. Finally Dr Coffin says that it isn't impossible that the transmission from mice to humans was recent, and that this kind of transmission could happen all the time. The qualification "it isn't impossible" means he himself isn't attaching any likelihood to this scenario. He is just saying it is a possibility (however remote).

1 & 2 are so likely you can pretty much take as facts.
3 is a mere statement of possibility, and falls under speculation.

Senior Member

Maybe thoose that did suggest this thought Minnie (Dr Judy) and Mickey (Dr Peterson) were conducting the experiments. However, the people who have questioned the reliabilty of the data have been shown to be Goofy.

Anyway, because of all this news I have been craming up as much as I can about HIV/AID and in nearly 30 years they still haven't figured that one out.Varios conflicting theories of where it came from. It was reconed it could of dated as far back as the 1880's it did not just sudenly appear in the 1980's. The same as has been said of ME/CFS.

It was also interesting to note that there are 2 types of HIV that they think came from different sources. This may also prove to be the case with xmrv. I don't know. One thing though is that there is a lot for knowledge and technology than 30 years ago.

Ironically, I have been involved in educating young people and others re Safe Practice re HIV and have always been careful to the point it is instinctive to be careful re body fluids. To the point that when my partner cut himself badly I reached for the gloves.

It may agood idea if we adapted this attitude until we know other wise. After all we should know better now. I know I am.

Senior Member

Maybe thoose that did suggest this thought Minnie (Dr Judy) and Mickey (Dr Peterson) were conducting the experiments. However, the people who have questioned the reliabilty of the data have been shown to be Goofy.:

and how is xmrv transmitted?? i mean, i dont know anyone with cfs that i could have been in contact with. i didnt get blood transfusions either... or maybe i belong to the 5 % that dont have xmrv however , my naturopath is going to inform herself about the virus, maybe there is a homeopatic remedy available...

Senior Member

On this thread topic, scientific research has so far only established that human XMRV is not the same as the similar retrovirus in mice or the one which causes prostate cancer. We can hypothesize about mutations, but my concern is that these hypotheses not turn into web rumors about mice causing or carrrying our form of XMRV, or about our causing men to get this aggressive form of prostate cancer. Peoples minds seem to work that way. Let's let science lead us, so that rumors don't shoot off from this--

_Kim_

Guest

and how is xmrv transmitted?? i mean, i dont know anyone with cfs that i could have been in contact with. i didnt get blood transfusions either... or maybe i belong to the 5 % that dont have xmrv however , my naturopath is going to inform herself about the virus, maybe there is a homeopatic remedy available...

David, there may be asymptomatic carriers for the virus (remember that <4% of the healthy controls in the WPI study tested positive for XMRV). It has also been suggested that it may be transmissable through the germ line (you were born with it). Because we know so little about transmission, we're all just making speculations at this point.

dmarie4301

Guest

Sorry if this has already been mentioned or discussed in some capacity or another but I really found this quite interesting. I'm referring to a point in Dr. Peterson's presentation at the CFSAC meeting in which he said:

Also note that the accompanying powerpoint slide lists the following bullet points:

What Dr. Peterson meant was that there was no contamination happened IN THE LAB from any mouse experimentation going on. XMRV is a mouse variant of a retrovirus in mice. It was transmitted at some time to the human genome. (Im speculating via vaccines which have to be cultured on animal tissue, which could be contaminated with a retrovirus). But what Peterson meant was that there was NO CONTAMINATION IN THE LAB ITSELF FROM A MOUSE. This is MY understanding.

All previous attempts to nail down a cause for CFSincluding many links to viral infectionshave foundered or been retracted, and many doctors remain doubtful that its a coherent disease. Mikovits says her work proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that CFS is a real disease. But some of her peers find the report of a viral link premature.

Joseph DeRisi, a molecular biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who co-discovered XMRV, was not satisfied with details in the paper: He wanted to know more about the viral load in CFS patients and how the demographics of the control group matched that of CFS patients. And the Mikovits team didnt do enough to rule out contamination, he says. One has to be very careful about making claims about such a sensitive and emotionally charged issue as CFS, where many claims have been made in the past. At the least, a double-blind study where a third-party lab searches for XMRV in CFS patients and in controls is vital, he says.